# Dr Michael G Strauss: Adam and Eve: Genetic Evidence

**URL:** https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/dr-michael-g-strauss-adam-and-eve-genetic-evidence/2473
**Category:** Office Hours
**Tags:** Adam
**Created:** [October 29, 2018, 5:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/dr-michael-g-strauss-adam-and-eve-genetic-evidence/2473 "2018-10-29T17:07:30Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![MStrauss](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c5a1d2/32.png) [@MStrauss](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/MStrauss)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2018, 7:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/dr-michael-g-strauss-adam-and-eve-genetic-evidence/2473/10 "2018-10-29T19:08:24Z")

</div>

When I look at this article [https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/heliocentric-certainty-against-a-bottleneck-of-two/61/12](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/heliocentric-certainty-against-a-bottleneck-of-two/61/12) it seems that just a factor of 5 would give a genetic Adam and Eve as recent as 100K years ago. The Moulon Sheep demonstrate to me that the model could be off by that much. So as a physicist, I really don’t see how geneticists make such definitive statement when the evidence seems to indicate that their models could be off by factors that would radically modify their conclusions. A simple factor of 5 easily allows a single couple at 100K.

In physics we haven’t discovered something until we demonstrate it to the 5 sigma level including statistical and systematic uncertainties. The chart shown in this article has 100 K less than 2 sigma from the mean, which in physics isn’t even considered anywhere near outside of the boundary of likely, not just viable. If you showed a physicist the chart in this article, they would say that even 0 years is a reasonable conclusion from the data.

Mike

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/dr-michael-g-strauss-adam-and-eve-genetic-evidence/2473)._